Cargando…

Clinical and cost effectiveness of memory rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury: a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of a group-based memory rehabilitation programme for people with traumatic brain injury. DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, observer-blinded, randomized controlled trial in England. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: People with memory problems...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: das Nair, Roshan, Bradshaw, Lucy E, Day, Florence EC, Drummond, Avril, Harris, Shaun RS, Fitzsimmons, Deborah, Montgomery, Alan A, Newby, Gavin, Sackley, Catherine, Lincoln, Nadina B
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6585159/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30977398
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0269215519840069
_version_ 1783428653506363392
author das Nair, Roshan
Bradshaw, Lucy E
Day, Florence EC
Drummond, Avril
Harris, Shaun RS
Fitzsimmons, Deborah
Montgomery, Alan A
Newby, Gavin
Sackley, Catherine
Lincoln, Nadina B
author_facet das Nair, Roshan
Bradshaw, Lucy E
Day, Florence EC
Drummond, Avril
Harris, Shaun RS
Fitzsimmons, Deborah
Montgomery, Alan A
Newby, Gavin
Sackley, Catherine
Lincoln, Nadina B
author_sort das Nair, Roshan
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of a group-based memory rehabilitation programme for people with traumatic brain injury. DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, observer-blinded, randomized controlled trial in England. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: People with memory problems following traumatic brain injury, aged 18–69 years, able to travel to group sessions, communicate in English, and give consent. INTERVENTIONS: A total of 10 weekly group sessions of manualized memory rehabilitation plus usual care (intervention) vs. usual care alone (control). MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the patient-reported Everyday Memory Questionnaire (EMQ-p) at six months post randomization. Secondary outcomes were assessed at 6 and 12 months post randomization. RESULTS: We randomized 328 participants. There were no clinically important differences in the primary outcome between arms at six-month follow-up (mean EMQ-p score: 38.8 (SD 26.1) in intervention and 44.1 (SD 24.6) in control arms, adjusted difference in means: –2.1, 95% confidence interval (CI): –6.7 to 2.5, p = 0.37) or 12-month follow-up. Objectively assessed memory ability favoured the memory rehabilitation arm at the 6-month, but not at the 12-month outcome. There were no between-arm differences in mood, experience of brain injury, or relative/friend assessment of patient’s everyday memory outcomes, but goal attainment scores favoured the memory rehabilitation arm at both outcome time points. Health economic analyses suggested that the intervention was unlikely to be cost effective. No safety concerns were raised. CONCLUSION: This memory rehabilitation programme did not lead to reduced forgetting in daily life for a heterogeneous sample of people with traumatic brain injury. Further research will need to examine who benefits most from such interventions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6585159
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65851592019-07-22 Clinical and cost effectiveness of memory rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury: a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial das Nair, Roshan Bradshaw, Lucy E Day, Florence EC Drummond, Avril Harris, Shaun RS Fitzsimmons, Deborah Montgomery, Alan A Newby, Gavin Sackley, Catherine Lincoln, Nadina B Clin Rehabil Evaluative Studies OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of a group-based memory rehabilitation programme for people with traumatic brain injury. DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, observer-blinded, randomized controlled trial in England. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: People with memory problems following traumatic brain injury, aged 18–69 years, able to travel to group sessions, communicate in English, and give consent. INTERVENTIONS: A total of 10 weekly group sessions of manualized memory rehabilitation plus usual care (intervention) vs. usual care alone (control). MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the patient-reported Everyday Memory Questionnaire (EMQ-p) at six months post randomization. Secondary outcomes were assessed at 6 and 12 months post randomization. RESULTS: We randomized 328 participants. There were no clinically important differences in the primary outcome between arms at six-month follow-up (mean EMQ-p score: 38.8 (SD 26.1) in intervention and 44.1 (SD 24.6) in control arms, adjusted difference in means: –2.1, 95% confidence interval (CI): –6.7 to 2.5, p = 0.37) or 12-month follow-up. Objectively assessed memory ability favoured the memory rehabilitation arm at the 6-month, but not at the 12-month outcome. There were no between-arm differences in mood, experience of brain injury, or relative/friend assessment of patient’s everyday memory outcomes, but goal attainment scores favoured the memory rehabilitation arm at both outcome time points. Health economic analyses suggested that the intervention was unlikely to be cost effective. No safety concerns were raised. CONCLUSION: This memory rehabilitation programme did not lead to reduced forgetting in daily life for a heterogeneous sample of people with traumatic brain injury. Further research will need to examine who benefits most from such interventions. SAGE Publications 2019-04-12 2019-07 /pmc/articles/PMC6585159/ /pubmed/30977398 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0269215519840069 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Evaluative Studies
das Nair, Roshan
Bradshaw, Lucy E
Day, Florence EC
Drummond, Avril
Harris, Shaun RS
Fitzsimmons, Deborah
Montgomery, Alan A
Newby, Gavin
Sackley, Catherine
Lincoln, Nadina B
Clinical and cost effectiveness of memory rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury: a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial
title Clinical and cost effectiveness of memory rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury: a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial
title_full Clinical and cost effectiveness of memory rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury: a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr Clinical and cost effectiveness of memory rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury: a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Clinical and cost effectiveness of memory rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury: a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial
title_short Clinical and cost effectiveness of memory rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury: a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial
title_sort clinical and cost effectiveness of memory rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury: a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial
topic Evaluative Studies
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6585159/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30977398
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0269215519840069
work_keys_str_mv AT dasnairroshan clinicalandcosteffectivenessofmemoryrehabilitationfollowingtraumaticbraininjuryapragmaticclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT bradshawlucye clinicalandcosteffectivenessofmemoryrehabilitationfollowingtraumaticbraininjuryapragmaticclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT dayflorenceec clinicalandcosteffectivenessofmemoryrehabilitationfollowingtraumaticbraininjuryapragmaticclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT drummondavril clinicalandcosteffectivenessofmemoryrehabilitationfollowingtraumaticbraininjuryapragmaticclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT harrisshaunrs clinicalandcosteffectivenessofmemoryrehabilitationfollowingtraumaticbraininjuryapragmaticclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT fitzsimmonsdeborah clinicalandcosteffectivenessofmemoryrehabilitationfollowingtraumaticbraininjuryapragmaticclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT montgomeryalana clinicalandcosteffectivenessofmemoryrehabilitationfollowingtraumaticbraininjuryapragmaticclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT newbygavin clinicalandcosteffectivenessofmemoryrehabilitationfollowingtraumaticbraininjuryapragmaticclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT sackleycatherine clinicalandcosteffectivenessofmemoryrehabilitationfollowingtraumaticbraininjuryapragmaticclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT lincolnnadinab clinicalandcosteffectivenessofmemoryrehabilitationfollowingtraumaticbraininjuryapragmaticclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrial